Quick Thought On Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is inevitable. It became inevitable when legitimate achievements in reducing discrimination against gay people ran headlong into an altered definition of marriage that came to prominence in the 1960s and 1070s. Instead of being seen as a social institution geared toward the bearing and rearing of children, it emphasized the fulfilment of individual desires. Instead of a sacrament of mutual self-giving, it became a civil institution for the pursuit of mutual happiness. When looked at this way, there is no reason why gays should be denied entry into this institution, any more than they should be barred from certain kinds of employment. So if you want to blame anybody for this state of affairs, don’t blame homosexuals. Blame the heterosexuals who have chipped away at the institution of marriage over the years. Blame people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.
Comments are closed.
Eggs-actly! If marriage is about adults, then it is about all sorts of adults. If it is about children, about conserving values and passing them on, then it is about certain kinds of adults in certain kinds of relationships. Actually, this is all just a working out of the logical consequences of birth control, abortion, and on-demand divorce.
While there is plenty of blame to go around, let’s also pay homage to tyrannical libertarian advocates. Only amongst a people that believes that the common good ends at the end of one’s nose or other appendage can this sort of thing occur.
The changing outlook on marriage from a social institution to one concerned with fulfilling individual desires, corresponds nicely with the widespread rebellion against Humanae Vitae doesn’t it? In fact dissenters against this great teaching have done much to precipitate the collapse of the family, the institution of marriage, and recognition of the sanctity of human life. Considerations of “who is to blame” should start there.
You couldn’t have gone the honorable way and named Bill Clinton, or gone nonpolitical with Hugh Hefner and Elizabeth Taylor?
I agree the seeds sown by 1) widespread use of artificial contraception in marriage (and its safety net of abortion on demand), 2) considering pornography an issue of free speech, and 3) so-called “no fault divorce” have undermined the institution of marriage in the USA.
It appears to me that blaming Newt Gringrich and Rush Limbaugh tells us more about you than about them.
…and I do MM. I blame Rush and Newt along with many others. What advice do you have for me if I’d like to turn the tide back toward a traditional understanding of marriage. What steps can I take to make that happen assuming this is what you desire too. If you do desire this do your “gay” friends know your position? When the topic is brought up do you politely, but adamantly stand up for the traditional Catholic concept of marriage? These are things I struggle with.
I’ve been saying this for years. I first stole the idea from an op ed in the WSJ. Can’t seem to find it on google, but it was by a Protestant pastor in Kentucky or Tenn. He focused on the role that effective, cheap, contraception played in changing marriage into what you describe.
“Gay marriage is inevitable”
Not really. Predicting the future as to these things is Tricky business
Regardless I think is this not a area where I think most of the people that blog here and the Catholics at other sites mentioned are in agreement. We need to join together and fight this and educate people
Is this meant to imply that a same-sex couple cannot engage in “mutual self-giving”? Are you saying that marriage has become so debased that now even homosexuals can have it?
I think marriage, for most of the people throughout most of history, was about economic order and survival. I wonder, going back to the dawn of history, how many marriages were arranged, with neither the husband or wife having much say in the matter. Probably the vast majority.
I suspect the blame should go with the Founding Fathers who had such thoughts about the pursuit of happiness. Though it seems to have taken over two hundred years to get where they intended it to. Perhaps it has to do with something else however.
It is also a good thing that this hasn’t happened in other countries with a social democratic model.
Marriage has always meant different things to different people.
Why mention Rush and Newt? Just because they are Republicans? That’s a cheap shot. This blog should strive not to be so petty and compound the already shallow political discourse in our country. The culture of marriage has eroded over time in so many ways that there is plenty of blame to go around to everyone.
Why single out Gingrich and Limbaugh? Because they are hypocrites who opine about how marriage is really the union of one man and one woman. Except in their cases, it’s the union of one man and three or more women.
Adultery is another issue altogether. For all his faults, Bill Clinton has always been married to the same woman. At the very least, that puts him in a class above Limbaugh and Gingrich.
I do believe it is inevitable. The writing is on the wall, or in the polls. The younger generation is quite rightly in favor of equality for gay people, but they have bought into the modern view of marriage.
The only way out is something CS Lewis noted a long time ago – make a sharper distinction between the sacrament and civil marriage. That will mean turning away a lot of people who just want to get married in the Church for the photo-op.
The only way out is something CS Lewis noted a long time ago – make a sharper distinction between the sacrament and civil marriage. That will mean turning away a lot of people who just want to get married in the Church for the photo-op.
This is (or will be) a significant area of disagreement between us here. I’m not sure if a short combox message will do this justice, but we do ourselves no favors by creating one world where all the effects of marriage are felt and a fantasy world where the Church can just say things never existed. While I’m not in the camp that says gay marriage is a game changer (less than 3% of anything can’t be really), there are very real consequences in this world from people marrying and divorcing outside the church.
Does it not bother you that the same people you espouse (no pun intended) on your other pet issues are the ones that brought this about (all the agenda items since the 60′s)
Adultery is another issue altogether. For all his faults, Bill Clinton has always been married to the same woman. At the very least, that puts him in a class above Limbaugh and Gingrich.
Hmmmm. So frequent, casual adultery is better than divorcing and re-marrying multiple times… Certainly, both are pretty bad.
Still, have you run this past Henry with his multiple posts suggesting the Catholic Church immitate the orthodox in allowing at two divorces and remarriages as a concession to sin? I don’t recall you calling foul against those.
I certainly agree with you that the destruction of marriage via acceptance of divorce and birth control have put us on the path to “same sex marriage” — but I’m still not clear on must then simply throw up one’s hands and say, “Oh well, it’s inevitable.” That seems to smack rather of what is most convenient to one’s political affiliations and friendships.
What about getting married in the Catholic Church? Isn’t this web site to be about promoting the teachings of the Catholic Church?! What does Pope Benedict think about gay marriage?
Marriage is about procreation and gay couples cannot procreate. Maybe, the government should not regulate marriage and people should marry for religious reasons only. If two people wish to procreate or adopt children, let them draw up legal papers for the guardianship of children.
Two people can love each other with government approval. (We are not that dependent upon government where we cannot think and feel for ourselves.) If they wish to follow the teachings of a specific religion with marriage, let them join a church. If a specific church does not allow gay marriage, let them join another church – plain and simple.
Bill Clinton is a hyprocrite! Staying married to one woman while having sex with others makes him a pig! Your comment makes me sick. Men like that need to admit their mistakes and move on.
Does it not bother you that the same people you espouse (no pun intended) on your other pet issues are the ones that brought this about (all the agenda items since the 60′s)
Who brought all this about? I am a firm believer that the 1960s brought about the restoration of laissez-faire liberalism, something that been dormant for a generation. This liberalism first manifested as sexual liberty, but it soon morphed into the economic sphere. It’s no coincidence that the 1960s led directly to Reagan.
So frequent, casual adultery is better than divorcing and re-marrying multiple times
From the vantage of individual sin…not for me to judge. But from the the societal point of view, certainly.
adultery is better than divorcing and re-marrying multiple times… Certainly, both are pretty bad.
I’m not aware of the Church counseling divorce to a person who finds his or her spouse unfaithful.
Does it not bother you that the same people you espouse (no pun intended) on your other pet issues are the ones that brought this about
Yeah, when I think of free, unrestrained sex for pure pleasure and maybe a little kink, I think of Fritz Mondale, George Meany, Hubert Humphrey, Whitney Young, Stuart Symington, Tip O’Neill, Mike Mansfield, Scoop Jackson (hubba, hubba!!!), Lane Kirkland, Lindy Boggs, Carl Albert (wow!), Lady Bird Johnson…. I gotta stop. This is making me hot!
Though if laissez-faire liberalism was the cause of this one wonders whey countries like Spain and the Netherlands have same sex marriage. Never thought of them as hotbeds of American Calvinism.
one wonders whey countries like Spain and the Netherlands have same sex marriage.
Because “libertarian” is just an alternate spelling of “liberal”?
make a sharper distinction between the sacrament and civil marriage
This is what I believe is the only feasible response by the orthodox Christian churches to the “gay marriage” phenomenon.
Not only that, but I believe that the American (and Protestant) phenomenon of “serial monogamy” and “multiple divorces” (enshrined at the heart of this culture, ever since John Milton’s Doctrine of Divorce) makes such a travesty of “sacramental marriage” in the Christian tradition, that Catholics should be in favour of taking the state entirely OUT of the “marriage business”; to wit: there should be absolutely NO financial benefit to taking out a marriage license UNLESS the people who are cohabiting are supporting dependents–and by “dependents” I mean anybody (like an ALZHEIMERS-suffering maiden aunt, or a mentally handicapped adult child, etc.). All others should be taxed at the same rate single people who share digs together are.
And that means no dependency status for sacramentally married, employed Catholics who decline or are unable to procreate. The state has (in this libertine, post-Christian society) absolutely no interest in protecting what this American culture calls “marriage,” but considerable interest in protecting the rights of children and other “dependents.”
Warning: sarcasm on:
Darnit! Those gay people just won’t go away and be invisible, so I have to like think about them and stuff. Like, I don’t mind that they go into their little corners and be gay, as long as I don’t have to see it. (Well, I actually do mind, but…) And I wish they would stop complaining every time they are wailed on or driven to commit suicide. It’s our God-given right to punish the sodomite, since what they do is disgusting and cries out to God for vengeance. Why should we care if some people take it upon themselves to serve as instruments of God’s vengance… Anyway, I am a good Catholic, so I love the sinner and hate the sin. I mean, REALLY hate the sin. And I would rather love the sinner from far away, as long as I don’t have to see him, and as long as he doesn’t challenge my comfort level in any way. Except for my son, who came out of the closet two weeks ago…
Sarcasm off.
I tire of Catholics complaining about how gays are destroying the world. The fact is, Catholics don’t have the huevos to implement what they actually believe in this case. How many “good” Catholics would stop being such bigots once their son or daughter comes out of the closet and announced that he or she is gay? How many would have the guts to disassociate completely from such a sinful individuals, and tell them to their face that any loving relationship he or she enters into is inherently disordered and that they will never accept it? It’s all just bluster. We all have gay friends and loved ones at this point, so we would best stop pretending that we object so strongly. They are part of our lives now and we should just deal with it. This society is not “tough enough” to deny anyone such “rights”. Just let it happen and shut up about it.
Minion,
I am not aware that Rush and Newt championed or played any part in creating no fault divorce. I suspect it was lefties. Did Rush and Newt “benefit” from no fault divorce and therefore the general decline in the institution of marriage? Yes. But, what got this started was the pill, which CAtholic lefties are happy with, and no-fault divorce which was never an issue of the right. Yes, of course, the destruction of marriage was the aim. Homosexual marriage is the next and perhaps the final nail in the coffin. Aim your arrows leftward, good Minion!
Digby,
I’ve long had some favor towards the idea that civil marriage commences upon procreation — and a step further — that it happens automatically, without any requirement of ceremony, license, or consent. I think it would help limit runaway dads which is by far the greatest social problem around marriage that we have.
I find the argument blaming the spreading acceptance of gay marriage on divorce and contraception to be unconvincing. One need only look to the Evangelical community, which strongly opposes gay marriage but has significantly different views on both divorce and contraception.
The connection with abortion is more subtle. I would suggest that both are symptoms of deeper problems grounded in the triumph of individual autonomy (liberalism/libertarianism in the 19th century, post-Enlightenment sense) over community. One reason for this is that community often defined itself in negative terms, positing the “Other” against whom it defined itself. Medieval Christendom used Jews and Muslims as the other to define itself; the rise of nation states and national identity yielded a whole slew of “Others” to define ourselves against.
So can we give a positive definition of community and society, one in which some definition of marriage approximating our Catholic one is the norm, but one in which gays and lesbians (or unmarried poor and working-class women) are not marginalized “Others”? I would like to think we can, though I am not sure.
what got this started was the pill, which CAtholic lefties are happy with
Griswald v. Connecticut was in 1961-1965. At that time, the most significant issue dividing the Right from the Left was civil and voting rights for African-Americans. I don’t think this is a period of history those on the Right should be very proud of.
Kurt,
so since the right was supposedly wrong on civil rights the left gets a pass on the destruction of the black family and all the rest?
Arturo
Do you equate being a bigot with upholding the teachings of the Catholic church?
Arturo can answer for himself, James, but as for me, my answer is: THOSE “teachings”? Absolutely–yes!
However, the homophobes here should welcome so-called “gay marriage”–because, in the long run, gay males will reject it, and, in the short run, it will render homosexuality MUCH more repugnant to the average male sensibility:
http://publius-aelius.livejournal.com/674567.html
Kurt,
so since the right was supposedly wrong on civil rights…
Austin,
Given the fact I have not had the opportunity to discuss this with Rand Paul, I would welcome to opportunity to hear of and respond to your doubts about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Congress is in recess and my schedule is very free. Go at it, the ball is in your court.
James,
How is “upholding the teachings of the Church” done by saying that the gays are destroying civilization, gay bashing, disowning your son who comes out of the closet, or otherwise turning homosexuals into moral monsters to be singled out for special disdain? If you can’t “uphold the teachings of the Church” without turning homosexuals into the absolute Other, either rhetorically, physically, or politically, I think you should shut up about it. No one’s asking you to “uphold the teachings of the Church” anyway. What does that even mean?!
Kurt,
Let’s accept your premise, let’s take out that supposedly. The FACT that conservatives were bad on civil rights means the left gets a pass on destroying the family, including the black family through all the machinations of sexual license? Do tell.
Austin,
Fair enough on the comment that sexual license destroyed the family (black and white; the economic situation of the blacks just makes the destruction more apparent.) But this was not a work of “liberals” alone; conservatives played a large role in this destruction. And that in two ways.
The first is that sexual license was part and parcel of a large swath of “conservatism,” particularly that which goes by the name of “libertarianism.” Indeed, it was Ronald Reagan, who before Roe v. Wade, signed the first pro-abortion law in America under the rhetoric of “getting the gov’t out of the bedroom.” It was not considered particularly problematic to the libertarian right at that time.
But beyond that, the right’s promotion of a consumerist society and consumerist institutions (such as the corporate control of America). Insofar as life is just a series of individualistic “consumer choices,” then marriage must, perforce take that same character. The right’s hands are not clean in this matter; they have played their part. The agenda of the right is intellectually incoherent; traditional values and libertarian economics don’t mix; the one must destroy the other. And we know which one is winning.
Kurt,
Let’s accept your premise…
I appreciate the courtesy, Austin, but no need. I am happy to make the time to explore that matter with you.
There is a great biography of Clarence Mitchell entitled “Lion in the Lobby” by Denton Watson. You might want to refresh your memory by giving it a quick read.
Griswald v. Connecticut was in 1961-1965. At that time, the most significant issue dividing the Right from the Left was civil and voting rights for African-Americans. I don’t think this is a period of history those on the Right should be very proud of.
That is one of the most blatant and fallacious attempts at guilt by association that I’ve ever seen. Griswold’s [note correct spelling] correctness or wrongness has absolutely nothing to do with whether other people were right or wrong on the entirely separate issue of civil rights.
I could not possibly agree with John Medaille more; libertarianism, which is the favoured form of American “conservatism” is not true “conservatism” at all. Instead, it is the politico-enonomic aspect of the “transvaluation of all values,” which is the essential feature of advanced capitalist culture, the most intrinsically revolutionary of human cultures.
Instead of “conserving” anything of human nature or culture, it “commodifies” everything, in the interest of constant consumption, constant wrecking and rebuilding (for profit) every single aspect of human society. “Toryism” and even some forms of European social democracy are more about “conserving” indigenous cultures, such as the indigenous religious culture of the Roman Catholic Church.
In resisting this constant wrecking and rebuilding, government need not be the enemy; indeed, it COULD be a stabilizing force. The “market,” however, is ALWAYS an agent of change–change so violent and so complete that it threatens to alter human nature.
Although I am in favour of “gay marriage” as a matter of simple justice, I recognise that it IS, indeed, the “final nail in the coffin” of the debased form of “marriage” that most Americans practise. As Justin Raimondo makes clear in the article I cited, though, it will ALSO destroy those types of quite workable “gay marriages” that ALREADY exist in that “community.”
It really is necessary to get it through our heads that, among the Americans, only SOME Catholics and SOME Orthodox have “traditional marriage” at all; all the marriages of the secularized population and most Protestants are made in what the existentialist philosophers call “bad faith”–with one eye cocked over the shoulder, looking for the reassurance of the institution of divorce; their “marriages” are not sacramental, not “forever” and have absolutely nothing to do with authentic Christian tradition.
Try telling Protestants that Christ TWICE condemned divorce in the Scriptures without once saying anything condemnatory of “homosexuality” and you MAY get, as I once did, Luther’s rejoinder thrown back in your face: “He gave us that impossible commandment in order to convict us of our sins, knowing it would be impossible to follow.” THAT’S the Anglo-American Christian “God,” Blake’s “Nobodaddy,” and he’s a true horror–and the gloomy promoter of constant “transvaluation” of the fallen, sin-infected moral and physical world, which he teaches us, with Luther and Calvin, to hold as worthless, a “vale of tears.”
I give up. Trying to get you to answer a question based on your own premise is impossible. Is it cowardice?
Austin.
I am simply taking the entirety of your assertion, in the sequence you offered. It is you who now seems to be running away from your own statement.
John,
The left promoted the pill which destroyed marriages, families and led to abortion. The left promoted no fault divorce. The left promoted sexual liberation. The left promoted massive social welfare systems (hello Catholic Social Teaching) that destroyed the family. Conservative libertarians did not do this.
Kurt,
I am so sorry to have been mistaken about the right’s “supposed” lack of support for civil rights. I hungrily read the book you recommended and am properly chastened.
Now, answer my question.
Likely in all your ducking and weaving you forgot the question.
How is that a conservative in 2010, that is me, is prevented from criticizing left-wing social policy circa 1960s because conservatives of that era were bad on civil rights? Do explain.
Austin: The left promoted massive social welfare systems (hello Catholic Social Teaching) that destroyed the family.
Actually, Catholic social teaching is fully aligned with the core principles of the welfare state – remember Christian democracy and the social market?
The Church has always regarded the state as sitting at the pinnacle of the social order, with responsibility for the common good. And Pius XI said that a chief function of the state chief was that “consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor”. Pius XII says how: “through a generous social programme and the creation of a labor code”.
JP2 says it well (Laborem Exercens): there is an “obligation to provide unemployment benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families…Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure the life and health of workers and their families play a part here. The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge….A third sector concerns the right to a pension and to insurance for old age and in case of accidents at work.”
Or in Centesimus Annus: the state must ensure “in every case the necessary minimum support for the unemployed worker.”
Also, from the Compendium: “Authentic economic well-being is pursued also by means of suitable social policies for the redistribution of income which, taking general conditions into account, look at merit as well as at the need of each citizen.”
The problem arises when this is done wihout sufficient respect to the dignity of the person. JP2 gave one example of the “social assitance state”. But this goes both ways – Pius XI focused more on the violation of subsidiarity from the domination of economic life by big business and big finance (the “callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition…[the].concentration of so many branches of trade in the hands of a few individuals”.)
Bottom line: we need both solidarity and subsidiarity – you can’t have one without the other. And there is no place in CST for laissez-faire liberalism.
I’ll finish with Benedict’s call in Caritas in Veritate for social security systems to be protected in an era on globalization: ” the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market…These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State…cuts in social spending…can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers’ associations.”
Austin, so Ronald Reagan was on the left when he allowed abortion on demand in California in advance of Roe v. Wade? I didn’t know that. And I don’t recall any significant right-wing opposition to the pill, and it still isn’t part of the so-called “pro-life” political agenda, an agenda that includes such pro-life propositions as support for politicians who support war, torture, the commodification of labor, are opposed to a just wage, support economic systems which have desultory effects on family life, etc. And “getting the gov’t out of the bedroom” is part and parcel of libertarian rhetoric.
To be pro-life, one must be anti-abortion (and anti-pill, for that matter) but merely being anti-abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Opposition to abortion is foundational for a pro-life agenda if and only if something is founded on it; by itself it is insufficient, which is why the movement has been reduced to insignificance as far as the wider public goes. The issue is now a marginal concern to both left and right. 40 years of political action has moved us backwards.
You have some responsibilities in that area, do you not?
Austin,
While it seems to be an obvious, clear fact, I appreciate that you have come to accept that the political right in this country was wrong to oppose civil rights legislation.
Now, having established the merit of the liberal position on civil rights during this era, let’s look at the domestic social initiatives that divided liberals and conservatives of the time. The most significant was Medicare and Medicaid, replacing what my mother still calls “the county poor farm.” The other new programs of period include Head Start, federal aid to education, Legal Services (which did enable poor people to get a divorce), OEO (totally something out of the same mold as CCHC, which I understand may be a problem for you), Jobs Corps, VISTA, Upward Bound, Pell Grants and student loans, and urban mass transit.
What was not new to this period was cash assistance to women with children but no husband (due to widowhood, abandonment or illegitimacy). Both the State and the Church had long provided such assistance.
Now, there are the actual public policy initiatives achieved by liberals during the period. I think it can be fairly noted than many of them did not have as much as much of a positive impact as hoped. But it seems your duty here is to show the negative impact of these public policies.
“40 years of political action has moved us backwards.”
I do not see it that way – in my view society has digested the issue, reacted and we are well on the way towards other challenges. Regarding the original topic of this post – gay marriage – todays opinion piece in the NYT by Douthat decodes it quite nicely really.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09douthat.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
And yes I see much to be gained for all of us by allowing and actually embracing gay marriage.
For me it is perhaps as simple as this.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/a-happy-marriage.html
John,
I stand by my questions and assertions. The left did this, not the right. I do not feel any need to parry and thrust with you unless you want to get on the phone and call me an a**hole again.
Good Minion,
The left has the almost total destruction of several generations of poor people, particularly blacks, on their hands. The Catholic left has to answer for this, too, if this is what is meant by Catholic Social Teaching. The rapacious government, which you seem to love so well, did this. I feel i can learn a lot from you, and I mean that sincerely, but i ahve to think that the various Pope’s have a different idea of CST than you do.
Your pal,
I see absolutely no point in fulminating against extending the rights of property-division, tax-benefits, and inheritance to one more class of people.
And that is all civil marriage is.
End of story.
Austin says, “I stand by my questions and assertions. The left did this, not the right.” No evidence, just assertions, and no response to what anybody says.
As far as calling you an a@@ hole, those were the only two words I managed to get in. I don’t think I have ever been interrupted so many times in so short a space in my life. I was in Italy this summer for the Roman Forum, and ran into not one but two people who had the same experience with you. You’ve got quite a reputation, it seems.
What are you afraid of, Austin, if you allow someone to complete a sentence? That you would have to answer? Not so. You can just say, “I stand by my assertions.”
So, Kurt, I now have your permission to talk about how the left hurt the family way back in the 60″s. You’re sure about that. May I?
Grega, here’s Andrew Sullivan’s response to today’s Ross Douthat column in the New York Times:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/the-unique-quality-of-lifelong-heterosexual-monogamy.html
In the comment section of the Douthat column, I found this, and I think it would be useful for the right-wing Catholic opponents of “gay marriage” to contemplate what the writer is saying about how the American form of marriage is peculiarly non-Catholic, historically:
Thanks for the acknowledgment that the heterosexual nuclear family is not the historic norm.
The exaltation of heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family is essentially a creature of the Protestant Reformation. Until then, Western society (i.e. Christendom) was based on an institutional-collegial model — monasticism, guilds, feudal households, extended families — in which personal and economic relationships were communal and virginity was exalted as the essence of purity. Children were often raised by adults other than their own parents, and many people spent their entire lives in communal settings and never married.
Economic and social changes at the time of the Reformation pushed society into a household-based, domestic model, and the Reformers exalted marriage in response. They redefined “purity,” which had previously meant “sexually untouched” to mean first and foremost fidelity in marriage — including emotional fidelity. As popular theology, it was a spectacular success, and the nuclear family with a husband and wife and a clutch of godly children defined the Christian household for Protestants for 500 years. Catholics bought into this model while also attempting to maintain their historic exaltation of virginity and celibacy, sending a confusingly mixed message to generations of Catholic children.
You can’t freeze culture. We now live in a post-Freudian culture, where identity and meaning for adults is found almost exclusively through intimate (read sexual) relationships, and integrity to SELF is emerging as the form of purity that is most valued. In such a culture, homosexual persons were BOUND to come out of the closet and demand the same kind of social legitimacy for their relationships as straight people, and pastoral theology — and moral theology, and scriptural exegesis — is going to HAVE to respond. It has already done so in the more intellectually open Christian communities such as liberal Protestantism.
And I think that the Catholic notion that social justice is more of a product of corporate or communal living is also instructive for understanding some of the disagreements above, between those whose Catholicism is so “American” that they cannot affirm the social justice teachings of a Church whose social ideals have traditionally been based on a collegial, rather than a “coupled” society.
Austin,
Now that we have established the the Right was no friend to the civil rights of African Americans and I have recounted for you the major policy initiatives enacted during that period under the “Great Society” I would welcome from you an analysis of these policy initiatives and how the program of the Right would have been the better course.
Just please don’t bore us with claims of some vague Zeitgeist that you think sprang from the head of Hubert Humphrey. Please focus on actual policy initiatives that were adopted.
I don’t get it. They are comparing an immigration issue with the homosexual marriage issue. Huh?
Kurt,
the proposition of the Good Minion is that the decline in marriage happened because of Rush and Newt. Nonsense and of course he knows it. The decline in marriage in general was 1) the pill, 2) no-fault divorce, and 3) the general sexual license promoted by the left, not the right.
About the destruction of the black family one can look at the governmental policies almost exclusively of the left. I did not see any rightwingers mucking about in the black community in the 60s and 70s. The left including the Catholic left will have a lot to answer for all of this.
finally, the utter failure of left wing social/governmental policy from the 60s and 70s has a lot to do with why some of us blanch at you guys wanting another turn, including in health care. Sorry guys.
digby,
that comment on Douthat is quite right. however, it omits much.
the old mantra, marriage is good, virginity is better goes back to Augustine, and was actually a moderate position vis a vis Jerome and others. Given that, medieval catholicism actually held marriage and virginity together perhaps better than the church did post trent. You might look at Anselm on the BVM. He defends the fact that Mary kept house, cooked, etc, versus those who said she prayed all the time. The paradox of being both a Mother and a Virgin is Catholicism at its all-embracing universal best. what some call confusion, others call paradox.
second, it omits the development of the sacrament of marriage in the medieval church. one cannot underestimate the importance of consent in the sacrament and consent’s gradual creation of modern marriage, especially the relative equality of the sexes in consensual vs. arranged marriage.
Yes, we should throw off the Protestant/American marriage, but let’s not be so hasty as to suppose that we must embrace gay marriage. Instead, perhaps a recovery of spiritual friendship. (see Ailred of Riveault and Augustine.)
I think I can say this and still agree that our church needs to respond to the gay question in a constructive way, as there are some signs of here and there.
Austin, could you provide some actual substance?
The pill was pharmaceutical initiative, never illegal in 48 states and legalized in the remaining two without even the Catholic Church putting up a fight.
In fact, while Right was on the wrong side (as we have jointly concluded) of civil rights legislation I am not seeing from you a single citation of a piece of legislation during that period that was backed by liberals and allegedly caused these social ills. If you feel there were social trends and personal behaviors that caused social ills, fine. But don’t be blaming liberal policy initiatives if you can’t point to any. Read through the Congressional Record from 1960-69. Find me what bills were passed that you now want to object to. Other than the Right wing’s dismal record on civil rights, Medicare and Medicaid, student aid, job training, Head Start, and consumer protection.
As for No-fault divorce, yes, that is a piece of legislation. No state had no fault divorce laws in the 1960s. The first no-fault divorce law was enacted in 1970, signed by Ronald Reagan (later to become our first divorced President).
I did not see any rightwingers mucking about in the black community in the 60s and 70s.
That is for sure. As soon as a Black family moved into the neighborhood, the “for sale” sign was up in the rightwinger’s yards. (assuming they did not chose some uglier actions against their new neighbors).
Hmmm. First in abortion and first in no-fault divorce. Ronald Reagan has quite a record, but I don’t think you’ll see Austin say much about it. He’ll just stand by his assertions.
So, the pill was a right wing initiative. Interesting.
That no fault divorce was a right wing initiative. Interesting.
Social programs, such as those that required single women not marry their baby-daddy in order to get state funds, that devastated the inner inner city was a right wing initiative. Interesting.
That bulldozing black communities and putting everyone up in dangerous high rise buildings was a right wing initiative. Interesting.
That the drug culture was trumpeted by the right. Interesting.
That the sex culture was a right wing initiative. Interesting.
I would say, Kurt, that you are living in cloud-koo-koo-land.
President Nixon actually was a big supporter for population control and helped establish a pro-abortion policy for Africa. If you want to see the foundation for many of the social ills, look to the social policies of Nixon, who, despite the claims of some, was the most pro-abortion President of all, and proud for his pro-abortion stand.
Among legislation which the Right most objected to in the 60s was LBJ’s Great Society legislation expanding/creating the welfare state. The predictions of the right as to the problems likely to be caused by this legislation mostly proved true, and it was modified to a great extent by the far-right-wing president Bill Clinton under the guidance of Newt Gingrich’s congress.
Plus there were a whole range of economic policies (from regulation of trucking and airline routes to price and wage controls to excessive top marginal income tax rates) which the Left supported in the 60s which have since been widely discredited, not only in the US but in Europe.
Other major issues between Liberals and Conservatives of the time were not necessarily legislative. For instance, most of the hard left still considered communism basically idealistic and harmless in the 60s, with many admiring Mao, the North Vietnamese, the Castros, etc. Anti-Communists (many of them traditionally Democratic voters such as middle class Catholics who had supported JFK) were thus drawn increasingly to GOP candidates such as Nixon over Democratic candidates such as Humphrey and McGovern.
Further, there was increasingly in the late 60s and early 70s a strong cultural association of “sex, drugs and rock-n-roll” with the political left — as seen by the kind of characters who gathered at the Democratic conventions in ’68 and ’72. Since politics is naturally affinative, this tended to draw people who objected to moral degeneracy to the GOP side.
But don’t let that distract from Kurt’s attempt to portray all conservatism as racist… There’s nothing like wrapping oneself in the righteousness of the past.
This is a fantastic article. We’re always looking for valuable resources to share with our residents, and your piece is without a doubt worth sharing!
Dear dear Henry,
We are not talking Dems and Repubs. We are talking left and right. If we were talking Dems and Repubs we could point to all the Dems who opposed civil rights adn the Repubs that supported them. Nixon was hardly on the right.
President Nixon is of the “right.” President Reagan is of the right. The fact is, if you look you will find the ones who were heavily involved in population control were the right until very recent times. This is something very much neglected. Nixon represents exactly the source.
BTW, I am not your dear. You would do well to actually study history and stop with platitudes. You really don’t know much of what you are talking about.
Austin,
You still are coming up with nothing. You point to vague cultural, social and behavioral changes but have yet to connect them to any liberal public policy actions.
So, the pill was a right wing initiative.
I didn’t say that. It wasn’t a policy initiative, it was a pharmaceutical invention. There were no major changes in the legal status of contraception.
That no fault divorce was a right wing initiative.
Nor did I say that. It was mostly an initiative of the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws. Feminists were spilt on it and the good liberal Trial Lawyers were against it.
Social programs, such as those that required single women not marry their baby-daddy in order to get state funds,
There was no liberal sponsored policy change there either. While the number of love children expanded during that period, the rules for public (and Catholic Charity) assistance remained as they always had been. You seem incredibily ill-informed on these matters.
That the drug culture was trumpeted by the right. Interesting. That the sex culture was a right wing initiative. Interesting
Again, you fail to connect any public policy action to your complaints about unfortunate social changes.
DC,
I appreciate your thoughts about airline regulation and while there may be merit to the case for deregulation, I really think deregulation did nothing to strengthen the family or lessen drug use.
Austin come on try to get some distance. It might be enjoyable for your own peace of mind but heaping all what you dislike onto the other sides cart is a bit too simple. In reality you have actual people fill in over a very broad spectrum – you have pro abortion conservatives. Too much black and white for my taste in your obviously pained write up of all that frustrates you.
Come on try to relax – appreciate that somebody like Kurt freely shares his opinion with you – it is fair to assume, that just like you he came to them through honest thoughts, real life experiences and his particular path on this fine planet. So what if he these days sees much more value
I do not know how to frame it but I do have the acute sense that people here in the US are so used to the two party system that they artificially and forcefully attempt to divy up every single issue along party lines.
Certain things also change – I find the urge to demonize the other side silly. For us Liberals we should look no further than the post regarding former President Bush’s rather sensitive comments regarding our fellow muslim citizens. Dixi Democrats were also not exactly civil rights champions.
That is nonsense in many instances – I think one point
is correct the left did
Kurt,
You think the pill, the sexual revolution, urban renewal, forcing dads out of the home, the drug and sex culture are vague? Don’t really get that. You also seem to be, like my friend Minion, almost totally fixated on the state. Certainly liberals social policy contributed the breakup of the family in the inner city but that was not all. Cultural liberalism, quite separate from Washington DC, did the deed, too.
So, you say the pill was not championed by the left? You say the sexual revolution was not championed by the left? You say the drug culture was not championed by the left? You say urban renewal was not championed by the left? You say the welfare state was not championed by the left? Golly, these things just happened. Who knew?
Henry, as usual you need some hugs. Nixon was on the right only a seriously sliding scale. He was among the most statist, that is, liberal presidents in history.
Grega, I am not demonizing anyone. I am just pointing the absurdity of the Good Minion’s assertion that the marriage was destroyed by Rush and Newt.
The left will have a lot to answer for in the profound harm it has done to the American family in general and the black family in particular. Oh wait, all that bad stuff just happened! Sorry, Kurt, I forgot!
Kurt,
My objection was to your claim that the primary area of dispute between liberals and conservatives in the 60s was over civil rights. I made no claim that all the issues I listed had anything to do with the strength of the family.
DC,
Sorry for the misunderstanding on the relation to family life. However, I recall no 1963 March on Washington for airline regulation. On matters of domestic policy, I think you have a very tall order to argue that the most profound, most intensely debated issues during the 1960s were not the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Medicare/Medicaid.
Austin,
The matters you mention are vague in that they are amorphous social, cultural and behavioral actions that you have failed to connect to any liberal policy initiative. If you could point me to what votes cast by Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Rep. Phil Burton, Sen. Philip Hart, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, Sen. Mike Mansfield, Sen. Ed Muskie, Rep. Emmanuel Celler, Rep. Peter Rodino, etc. that you find objectionable or that promoted “sex, drugs and rock and roll” you would have the basis of a case.
So far, all we have established is that conservativism opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act while you have yet to make the case that liberals were equally misguided in the legislative and policy actions of the same period.
Kurt,
what i have shown and what you have not refuted is the IDEAS that destroyed the black family came from the left (sexual revolution, drug revolution, easy divorce, the pill and so on). It is absurd to think that i am claiming that Peter Rodino caused sex, drugs and rock adn roll. Your flippancy with the issues show also your lack of concern for the things (sex, drugs etc) that have caused such harm.
You seem to think that only things that come from Washington DC are the things that effect our lives. This is another problem with “progressives”. You are a statist, Kurt.
Kurt,
The civil rights thing you keep harping on is quite beside the point. Blacks were doing increasing well in this country prior to those the Civil Rights acts and then shortly thereafter they began to plummet into a total disaster that they have never completely recovered from. The question is why? I say it is because disastrous liberal ideas as enumerated above. You say, what….
Minion,
Your day job is holding up a lively discussion!
Kurt,
Part of the problem with your project here is that modern movement conservatism didn’t exist in its current form at that point.
There was a conservative group (Southern Democrats) who opposed civil rights in the ’60s. And some of those Southern Democrats later went on to become Southern Republicans. Conservatives in the North and West often didn’t support Jim Crow and Segregation at all.
Civil Rights was certainly one of the major issues of the 60s, and liberals (though more to the point: elites and non-Southerners) were on the right side of it, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that at this point.
However, that certainly doesn’t mean that it was the only thing going on, or that liberals did themselves nothing but credit during that decade. The fact that Humphrey and McGovern were defeated so decisevely (and that Carter barely beat Ford even after the Watergate fiasco) mostly had to do not with long term rejection of civil rights by the American people, but rather with the liberal movement coming to be identified with softness on communism, cultural license, and bad economic policy.
:) It will be interesting to watch how the obvious path of the western world towards full tolerance of homosexuality including marriage will effect our church and the plenty of closeted clergymen running it.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n16/colm-toibin/among-the-flutterers
I bet it will not be pretty. It seems clear to me that the religious cards – so to speak are about to be remixed.
It is certainly striking to observe that a good number of conservative Mullahs, Bishops, Priests and Rabbis and their excitable followers have really more in common with each other than with the more progressive wing in their respective religion.
In that sense our boys in Afghanistan are fighting for an idea of freedom and equality that our ‘mullahs’ at home consistently undermine and really do not appreciate.
The debate in ths thread about which party is worse reminds me of the many debates at sports bars about what sports team was the best of all time and the worst of all time. Usually over many beers. What would happen if the 85 Bears played the 67 Packers? Perhaps we can agree to only post comments on politcal issue over a beer and avoid the rancor in some of the comments. That does make me wonder who would win if Reagan ran against FDR? Kennedy versus Lincoln? Filmore vs. Coolidge?
As to the topic of the post, faithful Catholics are obligated to support the Church’s position on marriage. Being Catholic means believing and striving to live according to all of Christ’s teachings. A good read on this issue is from the CDF.
Cardinal Mahoney also had a blog post about the Proposition 8 ruling that is an interesting read:
On Wednesday, August 4, it was announced that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 which was enacted by the People of California is unconstitutional. His decision fails to deal with the basic, underlying issue–rather he focused solely upon individual testimony on how Prop 8 affected them personally. Wrong focus.
There is only one issue before each of us Californians: Is Marriage of Divine or of Human Origin?
Judge Walker pays no attention to this fundamental issue, and relies solely upon how Prop 8 made certain members of society “feel” about themselves.
Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God’s plan for the world and human society. Period.
Is Marriage of Divine or of Human Origin?
Well, that’s not a question that can legally be addressed by a court under our constitution, at least according to my understanding of the separation of church and state. It amounts to asking a US court to rule on a question of theology – if this were allowed, I kind of shudder to think what else might get ruled on, down the road; there are a substantial number of protestants, for example, that would love it if courts ruled that Catholicism is not “true Christianity” (or, to be non-sectarian about this, there are Catholics who would be happy if a court ruled the same of protestants.) Do we really want to go there?
Matt,
I believe he was invoking the natural law arugment.
Do we really want to go there?
You’ve got six Catholics on the Supreme Court. What are you afraid of?
The cardinal to the contrary not withstanding, James, “marriage” as currently practised by the majority of serially-monogamous, divorce-loving folk of the United States, was assuredly NOT “instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God’s plan for the world and human society.
Although I think it’ll drive some of you bonkers, I think those who see a connection between the Church’s position regarding a celibate clergy and her position on the “intrinsic evil” of the “homosexual disposition” had better take a look at THIS , because I’m afraid it’s now going to be influencing some of the debate about these subjects in English-speaking countries.
Thanks for this link – a friend of mine had pointed it out last week and we had quite some debate about it.
The piece definitely does deserve all the attention it is getting – perhaps it will help to contribute ever so slightly towards creation of a more honest church.
Perhaps we are even slowly are getting at a hidden secret in ALL religions – that a rather disproportional high percentage of clergy, as well as celibate monks, nuns etc. are naturally attracted towards this sort of calling as a way to mitigate the stigma of a sexual inclination they really do not want to openly embrace.
But as a heterosexual I can only imagine and have no way of knowing – which makes the eloquent testimony of Colm Tóibín such a valuable and important contribution to the debate.
Darwin,
If you could get Austin to start heading in the direction you are, you would be doing us a service.
I find no fault with today’s conservatives who reject certain actions or positions of conservatives of the past and disconnect themselves from those actions (of course, the same could be said of liberals). Austin it seems can’t bring himself to say this. And let’s note that while conservatives outside the South did not always support segregation and Jim Crow, many did oppose the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, including Western Senator Barry Goldwater and the Upper East Sider William F. Buckley.
And I also want to commend and not forget the support civil rights received from Southern and working class liberals. There were more union members at the 1963 March on Washington than there were white collar professionals.
Austin, on the other hand, descends into babble.
Maybe we can come to an understanding. I am a policy liberal. If he holds us unconnected to any of the behavior changes in the 1960s he is so agitated about, I will concede his use of the term “cultural liberal” to that with the understanding it has no proven connection to us policy liberals.
Kurt,
The left is the left. The left destroyed the family, including the black family, not Rush, not Bush, not Newt. The left. I guess this is babble to someone who cannot argue back.
Austin – it is no more true that “the left is the left” than it is that the right is the right. Do you really want to be accountable for the actions of everyone on your side of the left/right divide? So New Dealers have to answer for Stalinism, or Republicans for Nazi genocide?
Kurt, if you’re interested in 1960s policy changes, it might help to think about how the family-centered policies of the New Deal were left by the wayside: http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc.acc.051007.new.deal.htm
Austin,
So you can’t point to a single policy initiative enacted during the 1960s that hurt the family but all you can come up with is that there is an unbreakable link between the movement that enacted Medicare/Medicaid, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Head Start, student aid, and consumer protection legislation with other social changes that you believe hurt the family.
And oddly, while you offer nothing but a repeated assertion that liberal public policy is tied to sex, drugs and rock & roll, it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit to the obvious historical truth of the conservative opposition to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Those who forget history should read:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2010/08/james-j-kilpatrick-conservativ.html
Let me start my saying, in capital letters, I’M NOT DEFENDING AUSTIN; a person who merely asserts, accuses, and can’t present his ideas, presuming he has any, in a coherent fashion, deserves no defense and will get none from me.
That being said, Social Security did harm the family. In the past, old-age security meant you had a lot of money or you had a lot of children. Since most couldn’t have the first they had the second. There was an exchange of gifts and gratitude between the generations. But SS broke the economic connection between the old and the young. The big winners in SS were those who have no children of their own, and hence escape a great deal of expense, but rely on others to have sufficient children to pay the SS taxes to support them. Now SS is formally broke, and instead of subsidizing the general fund, as it has in a big way since Reagan, it requires drafts from the general fund.
In the same way, medicare gives the elderly a claim on the earnings of the young, a claim which even “conservatives” no take as a right. Hence the “No socialized medicine–hands off medicare” placards carried in tea parties. Conservatism has come to mean, “Entitlements for me, but not for thee–oh and please lower my taxes while you’re about it.”
Further, the conservatives had no answers of their own for the problems that SS, Medicare, etc., addressed. Their one piece of advice is “don’t be poor.” We are left with statist solutions because the conservatives like Austin, who should have supported subsidiarity, just wages, and localism, were really just dupes and fellow-travelers of the corporatists, who love statist solutions when it comes to their own interests, since they have become the effective owners of the state.